Steward requests/Permissions

==== Username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status = <!-- Don't change this line -->
 |domain = <!-- Such as en.wikibooks -->
 |user name = 
 |discussion= 
}}
(your remarks) ~~~~

==== user name@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain =
 |user name =
 |discussion= 
}}

See the link above for comments.

I strongly suggest checkusering these users. Prodego ^talk 07:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) The page history strongly suggests that all users supporting Ujjwol's adminship at the above-linked page are in fact the same user. CheckUser data appears to confirm that this is what is going on. This request is therefore not done, unless some further explanation can be given. — Dan | talk 07:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]

Let's keep in mind that Internet access in Nepal is not the same as it is in developed countries, and that these people all work together and probably use the same computer. It's hardly as nefarious as it's being made out to be. I have worked with Ujjwol on Wiktionary and I can vouch for his "character" if need be. He's no Grawp if that's what you all are thinking. Mike Halterman 07:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Fair point, I've switched the request status back to "in progress." I would like to hear from Ujjwol, though, before we go ahead with the request. — Dan | talk 07:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, it seems the supporters were friends recruited by this user to vote for him. Unfortunately this does not amount to a community, but I see no problem with three months' temporary adminship. Done, to expire on 11 March 2010. Ujjwol, best of luck with the project, and I hope you can convince your friends to become active contributors. Mike, thanks for the lesson in being cautious. — Dan | talk 07:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I speak the language and wanna help current administrator Kaare to re-edit/delete MediaWiki local message translations cause here uses translatewiki.net. And also removing vandalism. --Qaqqalik 20:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Seems like there is no opposition, but it would really be helpful if we could get a translation of that conversation... --FiliP ██ 22:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Summarized: The request is supported by the current administrator Kaare (who doesn't understand kl), and Qaqqalik understands kl.

Currently, the request is supported by three users, which isn't enough to give permanent sysopship, but if you like, we can give you three months temp. sysop (same thing, only we remove the rights after three months if you do not come back here and say you wish for three more months). Is this okey for you? Laaknor 20:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Three month okay for me, thx --Qaqqalik 20:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Done expires 2010年04月01日. Laaknor 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Received --Qaqqalik 20:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I'm Ikatz. I am the most active user of the Basque wiktionary and I want to be administrator. Now there are two administrators, but one of them never accesses to wiktionary and the second adminstrator accesses a little bit. Sometimes when there is vandalism, often spend days or even weeks before they are deleted and punished. Moreover, in the Basque wiktionary there are many things to do but some of them I can not do because I am not an administrator. I have not presented at the cafe to be adminstrator because there are only the second manager mentioned above and me. Besides the second administrator is who recommended me introduce myself just to administrator and I thought it wouldn't be necessary to vote in the cafe because it has already offered their support. Forgive me for my bad English. Thanks. --EH-Ikatz ^{answer here} 22:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Please do go to your local discussion area and mention that you'd like to help out. If there are no objections after a few days we can make you a temporary admin but we do like to see you ask for community input. After you do, come back and link to the discussion. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I have already volunteered to be administrator on the discussion rooms and the active administrator has already voted for it. --EH-Ikatz ^{answer here} 13:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Please, answer me I am waiting more for a week--EH-Ikatz ^{answer here} 21:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

As per a similar situation involving the user Bengoa on the same project, I'm applying parity and emulating Birdy's decision on that case, from July 25, 2009: adminship is granted for six months, expiring June 15, 2010, with the possibility of conversion to permanent adminship provided a minimum community input can be secured by then. Good luck. Redux 13:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello! I want admin rights in Fulfulde Wikipedia because I can help for this. User Guaka isn't active administrator in this Wikipedia.

This page doesn't exist. Alex Pereira ^falaê 18:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Alex is referring to the discussion page linked above ( ff:iscussion_utilisateur:Rokaszil )... is there a chance it's actually somewhere else? ++Lar: t/c 06:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, I haven't got the talk page in Fulfulde Wikipedia. I have got the talk page in Lithuanian Wikipedia. Rokaszil 10:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Have any announcement on local page? Alex Pereira ^falaê 16:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

User page? http://ff.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Rokaszil . Rokaszil 17:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

No, your local Village pump. What the community say about your request? Alex Pereira ^falaê 18:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Fulfulde Wikipedia haven't got the community :) In community is I and Guaka. Rokaszil 11:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

(Not sure if this is the right procedure/place to post it. Currently temp-admin.)
I was given temporary adminship with the advice to start a discussion/public request before it expires on Dec 15. I did so, and after my initial "trial-period," I now have the support of the two most active contributors (see link -- basically "our community"; I hope it will grow somewhat over time). Thank you so much/Ahehee' nitsxaago Seb az86556 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

We like to see a few more comments before making adminship permanent but you have the support of the other active admin there so I think this seems reasonable. What do my fellow stewards think? In any case we certainly could extend your temporary again. ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

uhm, I'd extend his temp flag, 2 supports are not enough ... not even in a small community--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd also say extend the temp flag, until the community is a bit more robust. — Dan | talk 20:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, I suppose. It's a "chicken or egg"-question. It has me wondering how Node_ue gets to retain permanent status for 4 years without any support or any community at that time. Effectively, the only permanent admin is inactive, and anyone who is willing to become active and do something will be told... Anyways --- How many people would it take? Seb az86556 03:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Hold a local vote to remove adminship from said person, who was apparently added during a period of looser standards. Kylu 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for that answer. The second part was about the number of votes; it would be nice for all of us if somebody could tell me something for future reference along the lines of "Don't bother showing up again before you have 100 votes" or something like that. I could not find the corresponding rule anywhere; maybe I was simply looking in the wrong places. Again, thank you. Seb az86556 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

You raise valid concerns. I'm not sure we do have a hard and fast rule (although it's certainly way less than 100 votes!), it's more common sense (although I could be wrong). 2 votes is very much on the low side of the line, although I tended to think that in this particular case it might be sufficient given that you had already shown your mettle, and you had the support of the other active admin. But I wasn't sure, which is why I asked my fellow stewards for their views instead of just saying yes. Since they are saying probably not, I tend to agree. As for a line... typically if we see 4 or 5 votes from regular contributors that's usually enough. There is a lot of difference between a community of 2 and a community of 5... 5 is trending towards a self sufficient community, while 2 is one person away from a one man show, which we know isn't sustainable. The line for 'crat is significantly higher than admin of course. In any case we are prepared to renew your temp without any question. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 11:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

OK. I doubt we'll ever need a crat or anything beyond that. Thank you for the temp-flag, and I guess I'll be back again in a few months... :)

(PS: you should probably put some sort of explanation like you just gave me on the top of this page... all current request are below 5 votes as far as I can tell... saves time and energy for everybody...) Seb az86556 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you. --Mmthinker 07:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Done. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 20:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like to request temporary adminship to clean out the speedy deletion category. Cheers, Razor flame 03:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Election done. --WizardOfOz 09:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

User is not yet identified to the WMF. This needs to be done before access can be granted. I've posted information about the procedure at his talk page. --Erwin 09:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: this user requested CU rights in last month: Steward requests/Permissions/2009-10#Smooth O@bs.wikipedia. LeinaD (t) 17:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note:@ Leinad and he was elected by the rules of bs.wiki. Dungodung wanted more votes and so we extended the election. The result are 10 more votes of support and two which doesn ́t count (not enough edits by election rules). It is the same election just extended.--WizardOfOz 18:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

  I think this is fine now, as the support for this user is quite obvious. --FiliP ██ 22:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

  Shouldn't it be extended, I mean there are not enough votes according the policy ? Huib talk 19:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

  Just for those few votes? There is no vote against him for a month, but if there is realy a problem we can do it once more :). --WizardOfOz 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Note:Extended until 12-15-2009 even if there is no need. --WizardOfOz 19:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for extending the vote. Policy is clear on this, you need 25-30 votes and 70-80% support for a checkuser election to be valid. 20 votes are not enough. See CU#Access_to_CheckUser. I hope that helps clarify matters, this is not a debatable point. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

==== username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain = 
 |user name = 
 |discussion= <!-- local confirmation link / local policy link -->
}}

Please remove my sysop flags on that project. Thank you. —Dferg ^(disputatio) 16:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

stws, please wait a day. es: Drini 19:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Er, your comment appeared after I loaded the page and before I hit 'edit' to indicate I had already removed the flag. I've now granted it back. Why the wait, out of curiosity? — Dan | talk 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I got mixed up, nevermind. I thought it was his main home wiki account. es: Drini 19:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Ah, I see. I guess this is Done now. — Dan | talk 19:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Please remove sysop status from this account. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done lack of clear consensus or policy on project. Kylu 03:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

The person is dead. There is nothing to be lost from desysopping the account. Enigmaman 06:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Status removed. LeinaD (t) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

– Katerenka (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Status removed. LeinaD (t) 23:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

OTRS stuff Done. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Permissions and locks Done Kylu 03:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Can I be made confirmed? I wish to blank my own talk page as my name change/usurption went through and the message is no longer relevant? I've tried to do this, but was prevented from doing so by an edit filter against new user accounts. I'm a sysop on en-Wiki. Cheers, NJA 19:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Listo. es: Drini 19:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Steward requests/Permissions/Footer

• Steward requests